torts outline - dan wilson bar prepdwbar.com/dan_wilson_bar_prep/free_bar_outlines_files/torts...

22
1 DAN WILSON'S OUTLINES My outlines are not intended to be definitive, comprehensive treatments of the various subjects. They are offered to show the thought processes of a successful bar study process. I ignore large swaths of material that are rarely or never tested. I focus on core concepts that are consistently tested and areas years of experience have shown are particularly challenging to students. The outlines are not intended as a substitute for commercial outlines. For example, commercial Property outlines explain in mind-numbing detail The Rule in Shelly's Case, The Doctrine of Worthier Title, and The Destructibility of Contingent Reminders. These rules are impossible for the modern mind to understand without extensive study of the Common Law. AND THEY ARE NEVER TESTED. So my Property outline addresses material which is always tested, such as present possessory interests and future interests. My outlines are not pretty. They have grown incrementally over the years. But if you master the material you will be well on your way to passing the bar. The outlines are offered free of charge. May they aid you in your endeavor! TORTS OUTLINE1 SUMMARY OUTLINE 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NEGLIGENCE 3. INTENTIONAL TORTS 4. STRICT LIABILITY 5. PRODUCTS LIABILITY 6. NUISANCE 7. LANDOWNER LIABILITY 8. DEFAMATION 9. PRIVACY 1 Copyright 2007 Daniel Wilson. Permission is given to use in preparation for the Bar Exam. This material is drawn from published MBE questions; Colorado bar exam essays; published Multi-state Essay Exam Torts questions; Dan Dobbs' hornbook on Torts; and BarBri's multi-state outline. Grateful acknowledgement is given to Professor David Barnes, my Torts professor at DU; Professor Arthur Best, DU; and Professor Steve Pepper, DU. Revised 2009. Revised 2010. Revised 2011. Revised 2012.

Upload: dangliem

Post on 07-Mar-2018

226 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

1

DAN WILSON'S OUTLINES My outlines are not intended to be definitive, comprehensive treatments of the various subjects. They are offered to show the thought processes of a successful bar study process. I ignore large swaths of material that are rarely or never tested. I focus on core concepts that are consistently tested and areas years of experience have shown are particularly challenging to students. The outlines are not intended as a substitute for commercial outlines. For example, commercial Property outlines explain in mind-numbing detail The Rule in Shelly's Case, The Doctrine of Worthier Title, and The Destructibility of Contingent Reminders. These rules are impossible for the modern mind to understand without extensive study of the Common Law. AND THEY ARE NEVER TESTED. So my Property outline addresses material which is always tested, such as present possessory interests and future interests. My outlines are not pretty. They have grown incrementally over the years. But if you master the material you will be well on your way to passing the bar. The outlines are offered free of charge. May they aid you in your endeavor!

TORTS OUTLINE1

SUMMARY OUTLINE 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NEGLIGENCE 3. INTENTIONAL TORTS 4. STRICT LIABILITY 5. PRODUCTS LIABILITY 6. NUISANCE 7. LANDOWNER LIABILITY 8. DEFAMATION 9. PRIVACY

1 Copyright 2007 Daniel Wilson. Permission is given to use in preparation for the Bar Exam. This material is drawn from published MBE questions; Colorado bar exam essays; published Multi-state Essay Exam Torts questions; Dan Dobbs' hornbook on Torts; and BarBri's multi-state outline. Grateful acknowledgement is given to Professor David Barnes, my Torts professor at DU; Professor Arthur Best, DU; and Professor Steve Pepper, DU. Revised 2009. Revised 2010. Revised 2011. Revised 2012.

Page 2: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

2

1. INTRODUCTION A. MBE. Always remember that the bar exam is different from law school exams. It is very basic, without the fine distinctions that form the basis of discussion in a law school class. It is also different from the practice of law. There is a bias in favor of areas that can actually be tested. One result is that intentional torts are heavily tested. Most Torts professors spend little time on intentional torts; mine spent one week at the end of a two semester course. Defamation is heavily tested; my professor never mentioned defamation. Statutes are not very important in Torts on the bar exam; most Torts professors emphasize statutes. The MBE is almost completely Common Law. B. MEE. We now have four released Torts questions from the National Conference of Bar Examiners.2 All four are straightforward. The issues tested are: negligence; contributory/comparative negligence, negligence per se, child standard of care, proximate cause, actual cause, res ipsa, alternative causation theories, strict products liability, joint tortfeasors, vicarious liability, BPL, eggshell skull plaintiff, custom, battery, and intent.

C. STRATEGIC APPROACHES. I suggest two approaches to Torts.

i. First, there are only seven Torts actions that we need be concerned with: negligence, intentional torts, strict liability, products liability, defamation, nuisance, and privacy torts. Organize your study so that you can instantly identify which tort is being tested and the answer will jump out at you on a MBE question. You can get a significant number of points on an essay merely by stating the elements of the tort(s) being tested. ii. The second approach I call the spectrum of badness. On one end of the spectrum is the lowest level of badness in the defendant--intentional torts. On the other end of the spectrum is the highest level of badness--intentional torts. Negligence is in between. The mental state of the defendant is crucial. The defendant cannot be held liable for an intentional tort unless he acted with the intent to inflict harm. On the other end, if the elements of a strict liability tort are present, the defendant's state of mind is irrelevant. If we are considering negligence, the standard is objective--we compare the defendant to a hypothetical reasonable person.

2. NEGLIGENCE A. ELEMENTS THEREOF

2 Colorado switched from writing their own essays to the Multi-state Essay Exam in July 2009.

Page 3: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

3

i. Duty. The defendant must have some sort of duty to the plaintiff. ii. Breach. The defendant must have somehow failed to live up to that duty. iii. Actual cause. Breach of a duty equals negligence. The defendant's negligence must be the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury. iv. Proximate cause. The nexus between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury must be not too tenuous or unforeseeable. v. Injury. The plaintiff must suffer an injury that the law of negligence recognizes.

B. STANDARDS OF CARE i. The basic standard of care is called reasonable care. My definition, from my Torts professor Jake Barnes: An actor has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of foreseeable types of harm to foreseeable others. The mental state of the actor is not very important. The standard is objective--what would the hypothetical reasonable person do, not what this actor would do. There are also several special standards of care. ii. Physical handicap. The care that a reasonable person with that physical handicap would take.

If the disability comes on the actor suddenly, i.e., a heart attack or diabetic seizure, the actor will be liable for injuries only if he could have reasonable foreseen the attack or seizure.

iii. There is no special standard of care for mental disability. Vaughn v Menlove. Defendant's haystack caught fire and fire spread to neighbor's house. Defendant's defense was that he was too stupid to realize the danger of fire. Held: Defendant held to a reasonable person standard and not to his lesser capacity.

iv. Split in authority whether an imbicile or moron should be held to moron standard of care or reasonable person. iii. Traditional rule is no special standard of care for insane persons. Modern trend is to relieve him of liability if his insanity prevents him from understanding or avoiding the danger. iv. There is no special standard of care for an intoxicated person. Getting intoxicated is itself negligence. v. Child. Both objective and subjective. The care that a reasonable child of this child's age, intelligence and maturity would take.

Page 4: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

4

1. Definition of child is not same as minor. Rarely applied to minor over 16 or child under 4.

2. If child is engaged in adult activity adult standard of care applied. DW's Law: Adult activity means internal combustion motors.

vi. Professional standard of care. The care that a reasonable person in this profession in good standing would take.

1. Usually doctors. Three approaches. a. A reasonable doctor in this community. b. A reasonable doctor in a similar community. c. A reasonable doctor measured by one national

standard. 2. Majority rule is similar community, with a national standard for specialists. 3. A professional is characterized by graduate degrees, the

profession is self-regulated, and there is some sort of duty to the community that transcends purely financial concerns.

4. Doctor is required to disclose risks of treatment and obtain informed consent.

vii. Statute. Negligence per se. 1. Safety statute. 2. Plaintiff is in the class of persons to be protected. 3. Injury is the sort which the statute is meant to prevent. 4. Violation of the statute is not excused by extrinsic factors. 5. When the reasonable person standard of care is applied, the

jury determines what is reasonable care and whether the defendant met that duty. In negligence per se the legislative body determines what is reasonable care and what is as breach of that duty.

6. Martin v Herzog. Plaintiff drives a buggy on a highway after dark without a lantern. This is in violation of a safety statute. Negligently driven car strikes buggy. Driver's defense is that the buggy driver violation of the statute is contributory negligence per se.

7. Tedla v Ellman. Statute requires pedestrians walking along the side of a highway must walk on the side facing traffic. Traffic in that lane is much heavier then the other way. Plaintiffs walk on the other side and are struck by negligently driven car. Defendant argues that plaintiffs are contributorily negligent. Held: Plaintiffs relieved from liability because in the circumstances it was reasonable to walk on the wrong side of the highway.

viii. Emergency. What would a reasonable person do in a similar emergency. Really just a variant of reasonable care.

Page 5: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

5

ix. Common carriers/innkeepers. Have a heightened standard of care. Probably includes a duty to assist. x. Custom. Custom can be evidence of reasonable care but an activity or practice can be unreasonable even if everyone does it.

C. WAYS OF SHOWING BREACH i. Failure to act reasonably. ii. Negligence per se. iii. BPL.

a. This is Learned Hand's so-called calculus of negligence. It comes from a classic case Carroltown Towing. This test compares the burden of preventing an injury to the loss if it occurs, taking into account the probability that the loss will occur. b. Facts of the case. Barge tied to the wharf in a busy harbor. November so short day. During war time so harbor crowded with shipping. Bargee was supposed to stay on the barge to make sure it did not break loose. He did not stay on the barge, barge broke loose, ship collided with it sinking barge and damaging ship. Issue: Was the bargee, and by vicaruous liability his employer, negligent when he did not stay on the barge. Analysis: The burden of keeping a man on the barge 24 hours a day is relatively small. The loss to be expected if the barge breaks loose is very large. The probability that ship will collide with barge if it does break loose are high because of the short days and the ship traffic. c. Another example. Baseball parks are constructed so that struck balls and swung bats can fly into the stands and injure spectators. The burden of preventing this is high because fencing the stands so no ball or bat could fly into the crowd would destroy much of the utility of going to the ball park to watch a game. d. Another example. Chicago B & Q Railway v. Krayenbuhl. A child playing on an unlocked railroad turntable gets his leg caught and severed at the ankle. The burden of preventing the loss very small, a padlock. Loss is very high, severed limbs. The probability of children playing on such an irresistible hazard is very high. Negligent not to take the protective measure.

iv... Res Ipsa. The thing speaks for itself. a. To state a cause of action in negligence the plaintiff must allege facts, that if true, establish that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff and that the defendant breached that duty. If plaintiff cannot allege such facts because he does not know the precise sequence of events his case is subject to a motion to

Page 6: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

6

dismiss for failure to state a claim. Res Ipsa allows the plaintiff to survive this motion and get to the jury. b. The plaintiff must lack knowledge of how the injury occurred. c. The injury must be of a type that is unlikely to occur in the absence of negligence. d. The instrumentality of the injury must have been in the exclusive control of the defendant. e. The plaintiff must not have contributed to the injury. f. Cases

a. Byrne v. Boodle. Plaintiff is walking down the street when a barrel of flour falls out of the sky and injures plaintiff. P is unable to allege the facts as to how the barrel of flour got there. Held: plaintiff has stated a cause of action.

b. Newing v Cheatham. When an airplane crashes without negligence the jury may assume negligence.

c. Ybarra v Spangard. Plaintiff was a surgery patient. He was injured while unconscious and thus cannot allege what happened. Further, there were six other people in the operating room and none of them is talking. Held: Res Ipsa can be used to hold all six jointly and severally liable.

D. SPECIAL DUTY RULES i. No duty to rescue.

a. Yania v Bigan. Defendant and his friend were goofing around by a strip mine. Defendant induced his friend to jump in a deep water filled trench. Plaintiff started to drown and defendant did nothing to help him. Held: Defendant had no duty to rescue, even though the other actor was his friend and defendant induced him to jump. b. Exception: Common carriers and innkeepers have a heightened duty to use utmost care and diligence to protect their patrons. c. Trend is to extend this duty to businesses. d. Employer has duty to warn employees of danger. e. Universities have some sort of duty to protect students from foreseeable harms, but probably not to protect them from harm incurred because of student's foolishness in consorting with bad types. f. Exception: If the defendant is the one who put the actor in danger. g. Exception: Co-adventurers. Farwell v Keaton. Two young men are cruising for chicks and annoy a couple of young women. The women complain to their male friends who seriously beat one of the young men. Later defendant gets the

Page 7: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

7

beaten one, puts ice on his head and drives him around for a couple of hours before parking the car at friend's grandparents' house. Beaten one dies and defendant is liable in negligence for not helping him because they were coadventurers. h. Exception: If defendant starts to rescue, he must do so non-negligently. This generally means that if actor starts to rescue he must carry through. i. Exception: Relationship between defendant and third party. Tarasoff v Regents of Univ of Cali. Psychiatrist for school was aware that third party intended to kill the plaintiff, which he later did. Doctor had duty to warn. j. Good Samaritan statutes do not impose duty to rescue. They give protection to a medical professional who aids the victim of an accident or assault negligently. k. Contractual: lifeguard.

ii. Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress. a. Traditional rule is no liability unless P is in zone of danger, physical impact, or physical injury. Emotional distress damages are recoverable as a parasitic element on physical injury. Thus if there is a physical injury or impact, however slight, plaintiff can also recover for emotional distress. Also if there are physical symptoms plaintiff may recover. b. Many states have abandoned the rule but for the bar exam we stick with the old rule. c. Molien v Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is a case where court allowed recovery without physical impact or symptoms, but the facts are extreme. Hospital negligently misdiagnosed husband with syphilis and so informed his wife. Wife suspected husband of having an affair and marriage failed. Court allowed recovery. d. At risk plaintiff, otherwise known as increased risk of harm in the future, but no present physical symptoms. Peyton v Abbott Laboratories. Plaintiffs were women whose mothers had taken DES, which was known to cause cancer in daughters of women who had used the drug. This is really a causation problem and will be discussed there. f. Exception: When the defendants negligently falsely inform defendant of death of loved one, or negligently mishandle a corpse no physical impact or physical symptom is necessary to recover. g. Zone of Danger I: If P's emotional distress is caused by threat of physical contact P must have been in zone of danger. h. Zone of Danger II: Emotional distress caused by seeing other's peril or injury. Traditional rule is that plaintiff must have been in zone of danger.

Page 8: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

8

i. But Cali extends scope of duty. Dillon v Legg. Mother and two daughters were crossing street. Daughters were both in the crosswalk and mother still on the curb when negligently driven car squashed one daughter. If the zone of danger rule had been applied unharmed daughter could recover for emotional distress but not mother because she was not in the zone of danger. ii. Limited in Thing v La Chusa. Plaintiff not in zone of danger must:

i. be closely related to injured person; ii. plaintiff must have been present at the scene

and have been aware of the injury; iii. plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional

distress. i. Emotional distress as a parasitic element of another tort is recoverable.

iii. Unborn Children. Most interesting is wrongful life. a. This arises from two situations. One, a negligently performed vasectomy or tubal ligation. Healthy child is born. Do parents have a cause of action for pain and suffering of mother, cost of medical bills or cost of raising child. Rule is that mother can recover for pain and suffering and medicals but not cost of raising child. b. Two, pre-natal testing performed negligently. Child is born with serious physical deformity. Mother says she would have had abortion if she knew. Mother can recover for pain and suffering and medicals and cost of lifetime care of child. c. But the child never has cause of action for wrongful life.

iv. Pure Economic Loss. a. Recovery for economic loss is parasitic on physical injury or property damage. b. Barber Lines A/S v M/V Donau Maru Ship spills fuel oil in Boston Harbor. The spill damages an adjacent wharf and the plaintiff's ship cannot dock. Plaintiff suffers economic loss because it has to dock elsewhere. No recovery.

E. BREACH i. Custom or usage ii. violation of statute iii. Res Ipsa iv. Failure to act reasonably v. BPL

Page 9: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

9

F. CAUSATION i. But for. But for the negligence of the D would the injury have occurred? ii. Substantial factor. Where there are several causes of the P's injury and any one of them would have been sufficient to cause the injury the D's actions are a substantial factor and meets the causation requirement. Kingston v. Chicago and N.W. Ry. Negligently operated locomotive starts fire. Fire merges with another fire of unknown origin. Either fire would have been sufficient by itself to destroy P's property. Held: D's negligence was a substantial factor in destroying P's property. iii. Two tortfeasors, one injury, cannot determine which tortfeasor caused the injury. Both tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Summers v Tice. Three hunters. Two negligently fire in the direction of P. P suffers an injury but is only struck by one shotgun pellet. Impossible to determine which negligently fired pellet struck P. If but for test used both Ds would not be liable. Court held both Ds jointly and severally liable. iv. Market share liability. DES. DES was a drug used to prevent miscarriages. It turns out that daughters of women who used the drug had a high incidence of cancer. Epidemiological studies established the link between the drug and cancer. Because of the passage of time it would be impossible to show that a particular P's mother took a pill from a particular manufacturer. Court said that P can serve all surviving firms and that each firm would be liable in proportion to its share of the market for the drug. No joint and several liability. v. Enterprise liability. Imposes joint and several liability on theory that firms worked together to develop and market drug. vi. Increased risk, but no injury yet. P is exposed to a toxic chemical that increases his risk of cancer, but no cancer yet. Traditional rule is to not allow recovery unless P can show that it is more likely than not he will get cancer. Modern rule is to allow a proportional recovery based on percentage chance P will get cancer. Petriello v. Kalman. Even if no recovery for increased risk is allowed court will usually award costs of medical monitoring. vii. Emotional distress caused by knowing of increased risk of cancer but no injury yet. Peyton v Abbott Laboratories. Another DES case. No recovery. viii. But if P can show some physical change may be able to recover for emotional distress.

G. PROXIMATE CAUSE i. Proximate cause is not the same as actual causation. Proximate cause limits liability for policy reasons. ii. Foreseeability approach.

Page 10: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

10

a. Palsgraf v. long island R.R. Co. Palsgraf was injured when a large scale fell on her. Palsgraf was standing on a railroad platform. D's servants negligently pushed passengers onto a departing train. Passengers dropped packages which exploded. Shock from explosion knocked scale over injuring Palsgraf. b. Analysis: The negligence of D's servants was an actual, but for cause of Palsgraf's injury. Cardozo's majority opinion held that the chain of events was unforeseeable and therefore D's negligence was not a proximate cause of Palsgraf's injury. "Negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do."

iii. Directness approach. Andrew's dissent is called the directness approach. Once D's negligence is established D is liable for any injury that is a direct result, no matter how unforeseeable. iv. Majority rule is foreseeability. v. Eggshell skull P. Once P suffers a foreseeable injury D is liable for any additional unforeseen physical consequences. Example: D negligently trips P who falls down. Unforeseen that P has an "eggshell skull" and dies from an otherwise minor fall. Some physical injury is foreseeable. D liable for full extent of injuries. vi. Intervening causes.

a. D's liability is limited if there is an unforeseeable intervening cause. That means the original D's liability is cut off by the intervening cause. b. An intervening cause is superseding if it is unforeseeable. c. Negligence is always foreseeable. P is injured in car crash. Doctor operates negligently and P dies. Doctor's negligence is foreseeable. d. Criminal acts or intentional torts are not superseding causes if they are foreseeable.

Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge and R.R. Co. Negligently operated railroad spilled gasoline in streets of town. Third party throws a lighted match in the gas and it ignites, incinerating town. Held: If act was intentional it is a superseding cause. If it was negligent it is not superseding because negligence is always foreseeable.

e. Intervening cause is foreseeable if it is a normal consequence of D's conduct. f. Escape from danger. g. Rescuers. D is liable to injured rescuer, even if rescuer was negligent. D is liable for further injuries to rescued caused by rescuer's negligence.

Page 11: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

11

h. If rescuer is grossly negligent that will be a superseding cause. i. Act of God not superseding if foreseeable.

H. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY i. Joint and several liability means the P can recover all of his damages from one of several Ds. ii. Joint tortfeasors who act in concert are jointly and several liable. This applies mostly to intentional torts. iii. But if two negligent tortfeasors cause injury or injuries and it is not possible to apportion the injuries both Ds will be jointly and severally liable. iv. Summers v. Tice. v. Ybarra

I. CONTRIBUTORY AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE i. Contributory negligence

a. Traditional C/L rule is that if P contributed to the smallest degree he is barred from recovery. b. Butterfield v. Forrester. P was riding his horse rapidly at twilight and ran into a pole that had been negligently placed in the road. P barred from recovery. c. Contrib is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by D. D has burden of proof. d. P is held to the reasonable person standard of care. e. Child P is held to the child standard of care. f. Defense can only be raised as to negligent conduct by the D g. Does not apply to intentional torts, strict liability torts. h. Last clear chance. If D had last clear chance to avoid the harm he may not raise the defense. i. Four states retain contributory negligence.

ii. Comparative negligence. a. Rather than barring P's recovery, his recovery is reduced by the proportion of his negligence. b. Judge made rule. Originally even if a P's negligence was the overwhelming factor in causing the injury the P could still recover. This is called pure comparative negligence. Thirteen states use pure comparative negligence. c. Modified comparative negligence.

i. 49/51 rule. The P is barred from recovery if his negligence is not less than that of the D. ii. 50/50 rule. The P is barred from recovery if his negligence is more than that of the D. iii. Percentage is determined by how far P deviated from the applicable standard of care, not how much of a causal factor P's negligence was. iv. Last clear chance majority rule not applicable.

Page 12: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

12

v. Avoidable consequences distinguished. P has a duty after the fact to take reasonable measures to mitigate the damages. This is not contributory negligence.

J. ASSUMPTION OF RISK 1. If P knew of the risk and voluntarily proceeded nonetheless, A of R is a complete defense. 2. Express assumption of risk. Will be enforced unless against public policy. Generally we do not allow assumption of risk of intentional harm. 3. Fine print. If P did not have a reasonable opportunity to become aware of the A of R will not be enforced. 4. Adhesion contracts. If the A of R involves a necessary service or product and P has no reasonable opportunity not to assume risk will not be enforced.

K. VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1. Vicarious liability is where a person who has no fault is nonetheless held liable. 2. Most important aspect is when an employer is liable for the torts of his employee.

a. Called respondeat superior. b. Applies to all torts committed in the scope of employment. c. An employee is one who works subject to the control of the master.

Factors: Does employee pay own insurance, own tools, transportation self-directed, has ability to refuse specific jobs, operate under own name.

d. Employee has to be acting within scope of employment. That means he is acting to advance employer's business, even if he is acting against orders. e. Frolic and detour. If employee deviates from duties he is on a frolic and detour. Traditional approach is to regard employee on frolic and detour on first leg of the detour, but back under employer's control when he is returning to his duties. f. Distinguish from negligent hiring and supervision. g. Independent contractors. Employer not vicariously liable for torts committed by independent contractor. Essential element is control, see above.

i. But some duties are non-delegable. Thus employer is vicariously liable for strict liability torts of employee who is an independent contractor. ii. Non-delegable duties difficult to define; includes blasting. duty of a landowner to keep premises safe for business visitors, ultra-hazardous activities.

3. parents are not vicariously liable for torts of their children, but may be directly liable for negligent supervision.

Page 13: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

13

L. WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVOR STATUTES. 1. In C/L tort actions died with the death of either the P or the D. This has been changed by statute, hence they are called survival actions. 2. Deceased P has an action for pain and suffering and medicals incurred before death. Cause of action belongs to the personal representative of the deceased. 3. Family of dead guy has cause of action for loss of financial support and loss of consortium. 4. Financial support is measured by how much money dead guy would have made minus money he would have spent on himself. 5. Obviously if dead guy is elderly or a child he would not have contributed much. Most states allow such an action nonetheless. Recovery will be small. 6. Loss of consortium is companionship, sexual relations and moral support.

3. INTENTIONAL TORTS

A. INTRODUCTION For all intentional torts the P must show an act by D, done with the requisite intent, which act causes the injury.

a. The act must be volitional. b. Intent can be specific if the actor has the goal of causing the injury. If the actor knows with substantial certainty that the injury will result the intent element is met.

c. Garratt V. Dailey. D is five years old and pulls a chair out from under his elderly aunt as she sat down. D is liable if he knew with substantial certainty that his aunt would hit the ground, even if he did not intend that she do so. d. Intentional torts are heavily tested but if you know the elements thoroughly the questions are easy. Intentional torts differ from negligence in two important ways. First, the actor's mental state. He must be acting with the intent to cause the particular harm (There is one exception. The mental state of recklessness suffices for intentional infliction of emotional distress.) Second, in contrast to the squishiness of negligence, the intentional torts have

Page 14: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

14

very specific elements. B intentional torts against the person

a. battery 1 A volitional act done with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another which causes the harmful or offensive contact, without consent. 2 Actor liable for unforeseeable injuries 3. nominal damages, emotional distress 4. transferred intent. two varieties.

a. Transferred from tort to tort. Example: Intent for assault and harmful or offensive contact results. Example: Actor intends to cause harmful or offensive contact, contact does not take place, and D is placed in imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. b. Transferred between persons. Actor intends to batter A and instead batters B. c. intent can be transferred between: i. assault

ii. battery iii. false imprisonment iv. trespass to land v. trespass to chattels

5. Minors and incompetents can have the requisite intent. 6. Offensive contact is judged by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. 7. Contact with objects closely connected to P's person suffices, such as hats, clothing, car.

8. If D sets in motion forces that result in contact will be liable. 9. P need not be aware of the contact. 10. Need not show injury or pain. The interest protected is the right of bodily autonomy.

b. assault 1 A volitional act done with the intent to cause an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive

Page 15: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

15

contact which causes an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with apparent ability to do so. 2 words alone are generally not sufficient for assault. However, words in the appropriate context can suffice. 3 future threats do not suffice. 4. Apprehension must be reasonable. 5. P must be aware.

c. IIED 1. A volitional act which is extreme and outrageous conduct done with the intent or recklessly to cause severe emotional distress. 2. Transferred intent only if the third person witnesses the conduct, is a close family member of the recipient of the behavior and the Defendant knows of the presence and the close relationship. 3. Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct that transcends all bounds of human decency.

i. Extreme business conduct such as abusive collection efforts is outrageous conduct. ii. Misuse of authority. iii. offensive or insulting language does not suffice. iv. Common carriers and innkeepers liable for conduct that is less than outrageous.

4. P must show actual damages, e.g. severe emotional distress.

d. false imprisonment 1. A volitional act done with the intent to confine P to a bounded area which causes P to be confined to a bounded area.. 2. Plaintiff must be aware or suffer a harm. 3. Must be imprisoned within a confined space. 4. No cause of action if reasonable means of escape. 5. confinement by threats is sufficient

e. defenses

Page 16: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

16

1. consent. Examples: Implied consent to battery in contact sport. Riding the subway.

i. Generally no consent to criminal act that is a breach of the peace, i.e. barroom brawl. ii. But exceeding the bounds of consent negates defense. iii. Implied consent to medical treatment in an emergency.

2. self-defense. i. Actor has right to use reasonable force to defend himself. If actor is reasonably mistaken fulll defense. But the P cannot retaliate if attack has ceased. ii. No duty to retreat. iii. Original aggressor has no right to self defense unless he used less than deadly force and victim responds with deadly force.

3. defense of others 1. Actor may use level of force that other would be able to use.

4. defense of property i. Actor may use reasonable force to prevent commission of tort against the property. ii. A request to desist is usually required. iii. If actor has been permanently dispossessed of the property cannot use force, unless actor is in hot pursuit. iv. Cannot use deadly force unless invasion of property also presents threat to safety of actor. v. Cannot use trap, spring gun or viscous dog.

5. arrest 6. unreasonable/reasonable mistake 7. implied consent in a medical emergency 8. shoplifter privilege 9. Necessity to avoid a greater harm.

C. Intentional torts against property

Page 17: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

17

a. trespass to land 1. intentionally entering a piece of land without permission that turns out to be belong to the Plaintiff 2. wrongfully remaining, failure to remove 3. nominal damages 4. possessor has cause. That means tenant if rental. If land is vacant owner has constructive possession. 5. Causing some object to enter land, e.g. flooding, chase a third person onto the land. 6. Protects subsurface rights and air space. 7. D is liable for actual and nominal damages.

b. trespass to chattels 1. intentionally interfering with use and possession of chattel 2. damages is rental value

c. conversion 1. interference with use and possession of chattel to such an extent that it is appropriate to award Plaintiff replacement value. 2. Trespass to chattels becomes conversion due to factors such as: bad intent, damage to chattel, time owner is deprived of use, alteration of chattel

4. STRICT LIABILITY A. There are five categories of strict liability. Strict liability means that the P need not show any fault on the part of the D.

a. Wild dangerous animals. Owner of wild dangerous animal is strictly liable for personal injury that results from a dangerous propensity of the animal.

i. Wild animals are distinguished from domestic animals. Domestic animals are those which by custom are devoted to the service of mankind. ii. Zoos are liable only if they are negligent.

b. Dangerous domestic animals. Owner is strictly liable for personal injury only if he knew of the dangerous propensity of the animal. So not

Page 18: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

18

"every dog is entitled to one free bite." c. Damage to real property caused by herdable animals. This means if your cows escape and eat your neighbor's crops owner is strictly liable. Otherwise standard is negligence. Does not include household animals such as cats and dogs.

i. Western states have a fencing in rule. Owner is not strictly liable if he attempted to fence cattle. Some states have a fencing out rule which means he has a strict liability claim if he attempted to fence animals out.

d. Rylands v. Fletcher. i. I disagree with the outlines here. ii. Case: Landowner built an artificial lake to impound water to run a grist mill. Unknown to landowner his land haw honeycombed with ancient mine shafts. Water broke through and flooded mine of adjacent landowner. iii. Court noted that landowner took every possible precaution in the design and construction of the dam. iv. Rule: Landowner is strictly liable for an artificial condition on the land that is not dangerous unless it escapes.

e. Ultrahazardous activities. i. Nuclear reactors. ii. Blowing things up. iii. Storing things which blow up. iv. Crop dusting. v. Commercial fumigation. vi. Damage on the ground from a plane crash. vii. In my opinion storage and transportation of toxic chemicals and gasoline does not give rise to strict liability. Very influential decision by Judge Posner Indiana Harbor Belt Co. v. American Cyanamid.

B. Defenses 1. Scope of risk. Only the type of injury which makes

Page 19: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

19

the activity dangerous. 2. Abnormally sensitive P. Foster v. Preston Mill.

Baby minks. 3. Assumption of Risk. 4. Contrib not a defense.

5. PRODUCTS LIABILITY

There are three theories of recovery for a defective product. a. Negligence. Just like regular negligence, except P need not be in privity with D. b. Warranty. Not really a tort theory at all. If the product does not conform to the warranty seller is liable. c. So-called strict products liability.

i. Restatement of Torts 2nd sec 402A. 1. Seller of a product 2. Who is in the business of selling the product 3. Product is in a "defective condition unreasonably

dangerous" 4. reaches the consumer in an unchanged codnition 5. and defect causes an injury to buyer, consumer or

bystander. 6. Is strictly liable for injuries to the user, consumer,

bystander. ii. Defective condition unreasonably dangerous is a term of

art. iii. Two tests

1. Consumer expectation. If a reasonable consumer, knowing the characteristics of the product, would use it, the product is not defective.

2. Risk/utility test. If the risk of the product's design outweighs its utility, the product is defective.

iv. Types of defects 1. Manufacturing defect. Product does not conform to

design. 2. Design defect. The product conforms to its design,

but the design itself is defective. 3. Warning labeling defect.

a. Unavoidably dangerous product with high social utility.

Page 20: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

20

b. Product that is dangerous unless an adequate warning is given.

v. Miscellaneous 1. Some products are unavoidably unsafe. Best

example is vaccines. Vaccines will cause the disease in some number of people who are inoculated, but the overall utility is so great that the product is not defective.

2. State of the art. If manufacturer, at time of sale, did not know of a safer design, or could not by a reasonable effort discover a safer design, the design is not defective.

3. Key in design defect cases is whether there is a safer design that would not reduce utility of product too much.

4. Defenses. a. Contrib not a defense b. foreseeable misuse not a defense c. A of R is a defense.

5. Drug cases. Many drugs have a high social utility but are unavoidably dangerous. If the manufacturer warns the doctor product is not defective. The doctor is a learned intermediary.

6. Intangible economic harm cannot be recovered.

6. NUISANCE 1. Private nuisance is the unreasonable and substantial interference with use and enjoyment of the land. Remedy is injunctive relief. 2. Public nuisance is an interference with a right common to the general public. A P must show he has sustained damage different in kind from that suffered by the public generally.

7. LANDOWNER LIABILITY.

a. Duty to persons on the land is reasonable care except towards unknown trespassers. For the most part the C/L distinctions of trespasser, invitee and licensee are dead. Duty to unknown trespasser is to avoid wanton and willful conduct

Page 21: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

21

that puts the trespasser at risk. b. Duty to business invitee is to inspect, warn and take reasonable measures to make safe. c. Duty is owned by possessor. d. Attractive nuisance is dead. Occupier owes a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable children on the land. e. Duty of possessor to persons outside the land is reasonable care.

8. DEFAMATION a. Written defamation is libel. Spoken defamation is slander. b. Elements:

i. Defamatory language ii. Must reasonable identify the P iii. Publication iv. damage to the P's reputation

c. Defamation is a false injury damaging statement that is published. d. I think the level of badness is negligence in knowledge of falseness and in publication. I think at C/L defamation was strict liability. e. Difference between libel and slander. Damages are assumed if defamation is libel and P need not show actual pecuniary harm. If its slander P must show pecuniary harm unless it is slander per se. f. Slander per se is crime of moral turpitude, loathsome disease, unfit to engage in his trade or profession, unchaste woman. f. Truth is a defense. g. Absolute privilege for judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings h. Constitutional defamation

9. PRIVACY a. Rarely tested

b. false light. Publishing false statements that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and attribute to P views he does not hold or action she did not take.

c. commercial appropriation. Use of P's name for commercial gain without permission.

Page 22: torts outline - Dan Wilson Bar Prepdwbar.com/Dan_Wilson_Bar_Prep/Free_Bar_Outlines_files/Torts Outline...torts outline 1 summary outline 1. introduction 2. negligence 3. intentional

22

d. intrusion on solitude. D invades P's private space in a manner which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

e. Publicity of private life. Public disclosure of non-public detail of P's private life where the effect would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.